Volume 15 Number 1
October 1975

David K. Wiles

Many of the value and feasibility judgments of this paper will be based upon the arguments and experiences of other "minorities" in the United States and Canada who have addressed the separate school alternative.

The philosophical basis for separate schools is perhaps the strongest argument any minority (see Reference 2) may present. It means a direct challenge to traditional concepts of U. S. society and policy making. In the foreseeable future, the philosophic case for separatism must establish the "mosaic" perspective of society in place of the "melting pot" and the legitimacy of conflict and confrontation to replace assumptions of consensus and classic rationality in how policy is made under certain situations.

Arguments over the operational meaning of terms "integration" and "desegregation" have highlighted the mosaic-melting pot controversy of the past two decades. Critics have charged that "throughout its history, the American educational system in all regions (of the U.S.) has perpetuated the subordination of . . . minorities and the poor" (see Reference 3) under the melting pot concept. Operational indicators of "melting, integrating or desegregating" have shown that the public schools (if they acted at all) interpreted these terms to mean assimilation and absorption of minorities into the "mainstream." Glatt describes this rationale:

When forced from the idea that cultural pluralism meant assimilation to WASP values, the schools instituted stop gap "ethnic studies" which represents, at best, token recognition of minority rights and needs (see Reference 5). As Cuban states, "to graft ethnic content onto white instruction will shrivel and ultimately kill a hardy, vital effort to reform what happens in the classroom" (see Reference 6).

The negation of melting pot absorption or token grafting strengthens the case for a separatist mosaic pattern under true conditions of societal integration. Handlin (see Reference 7) distinguishes between two types of integrative conditions; an open society where every individual can make the maximum number of voluntary contacts with others without discrimination or a society based on a balance of representation. Although ultimately committed to the open society (see Reference 8) concept most U.S. minorities have realized that representative balance is more realistic and have based their ideological efforts to establishing the mosaic concept in this light. The basic issue of representation and the mosaic is whether separation is to be in relation to a stable vertical hierarchy or a "marble cake" society (see Reference 9). A separate identity for any minority does little good if tied to a low rung of the societal ladder (as history has shown). To establish a philosophy that can challenge the existing stable hierarchy, the mosaic concept must be coupled with the legitimacy of confrontation and conflict in policy making.

Traditional discussions of legitimate modes of making decisions have stressed consensus building among reasonable men (see Reference 10) on one hand and the empiric rationality of scientific inquiry (see Reference 11) on the other. The common assumption of both approaches was that policy making concerned problem solving (see Reference 12) rather than crisis centered. The new legitimacy of confrontation and conflict must be based upon a new assumption that educational policy making is crisis solving because present structures and processes are inadequate in dealing with problems (see Reference 13).

Once conflict is recognized and legitimized as a viable means of policy formation (see Reference 14) issues about types of conflict and appropriateness of certain decision resources can be raised. Violence and abuse of power can be discussed as antecedents of oppression and colonialism and channeling of effective alternatives can be specified (see Reference 15).

Assuming an argumentative base of "marble cake mosaic" and "controlled conflict" policy making, Indians might build a specific philosophy for separate schools upon four points: the inherent right of self determination, inherent value contradictions of the present public school system, slowness of the accommodation rate and the ability to carry out a separate school program.

Arguments for self determination under governmental oppression can be traced to the founders of U.S. society. The formal logic of Locke (see Reference 16) can be reinforced with intuitive persuasion that, in spite of historical attempts to forget, the Indian is the original American and will exert pressure to remind present U.S. society of that fact (see Reference 17).

Present public school values can be attacked on two fronts: that many were initially wrong for Indians, and those which may have been beneficial have long since been subverted by the institutional structure. There is a growing recognition of the "hidden curriculum" in the institution (see Reference 18) which promotes regimentation, conformity, and apathy in spite of professed purposes. Present-day inner-city schools provide persuasive, concrete evidence why there is credence in exploring alternative organizations.

Although there has been some concrete financial accommodation (as NEFP reports show), a strong case of "too little too late" could be made from a historical perspective. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which until very recently was "a prescription to open doors of opportunity to Indians for success in the white man’s world. At worst . . . an instrument of cultural genocide "(see Reference 19) provides a keynote rationale.

Finally, the ability to govern argument must be based upon Indian specification of educational purpose and the policy arena. If present governing ability is rationalized by existing standards of education level or number of policy makers with institutional experience in budget, program and personnel, a weaker case will be made.

In summary, the philosophic argument for a separate Indian school system seems quite defensible upon rational and moral grounds.

The creation and perpetuation of a separate schooling institution must consider the financing potential. Unfortunately, the prospects for locating new sources of revenue or persuading major reallocations of economic resources in today’s U.S. society is dim. The taxpayer’s revolt of the 1960s, coupled with the energy crisis of this decade has reinforced a scarcity mentality. The belief in Keynesian growth has evaporated and the country is preoccupied with diminishing resources and cutbacks. The intrinsic relation between the economic system and the schools (see Reference 20) further discredits education in the public’s eye, a trend which began with Sputnik. It is difficult to believe that loss of faith in the public schools will induce strong support for alternative systems. The one possible example, private schools (such as those set up to dodge integration mandates), usually demand high per capita incomes which negates the present Indian situation. It seems clear that any large financing effort must come from public funds at some level of government.

Assuming a separate school system is proposed at local, state, regional or federal levels of government, it is predicted the new institution will be perceived as competitive with the public schools rather than a parallel structure. Local level examples, such as I.S. 201 Ocean Hill-Brownsville (New York), Woodlawn Experimental Schools Project (Chicago) or Toronto’s ALPHA school have shown that "autonomous" funding ultimately reverted into administrative decentralization of the public school system (see Reference 21). There is no reason to expect that an Indian "alternative school" would not suffer the same absorption fate in non-city local environments. State level resistance to competitive systems is observed whenever parochial schools gain enough resource to be perceived as a threat or make demands upon the public purse. Even in Ontario, Canada where separate school financing is mandated by the province, competition with the public schools is fierce over indicators of resource allocation (e.g. students, buildings; see Reference 22).

Because the basic support of the public schools is psychologically at the local level and legally at the state, the federal government seems the best possibility to support a separate Indian school system. Federal financing could be carried out like certain schooling agencies in Washington, D.C., such as Federal City College. As structural mechanisms for allocation are already established, the negotiations for a separate Indian controlled school system could be carried out in specified appropriation bodies. It would seem the extent of original appropriation and subsequent maintenance funding depends upon the degree and kind of political "clout" a schooling institution can muster. As a Federal City College administrator put it, "In the 1960s, the DC riots forced Congress to create FCC to get the blacks out of the streets and into classrooms . . . now the threat has lessened and so has our financial and legal resources" (see Reference 23).

The second battle of Wounded Knee, for all its publicity, highlights the inherent weakness of a viable Indian argument for a separate school system. There is a lack of a strong political base which can guarantee financing and reinforce the moral philosophic persuasions. A strong political base depends upon congruence of the constituents, size and the ability to form alliances. The Indian nation is fragmented, lacks the ability to coalesce upon crucial issues and totals 800,000 in a society of 220,000,000. Further, it is unlikely if Blacks, Puerto Ricans and other U.S. minorities will support Indians to the degree the majority culture cannot divide and conquer by competitive allocations of resources.

The Indian is caught in a peculiar political dilemma. Political integration is achieved in smaller units which would suggest local emphasis. However, the best chance of securing financial resources for totally separate schools seems to be a nationwide focus. Successful resolution of the potential danger in spreading already scarce resources too thin seems to lie in a careful, long-range strategy. At present, this strategy does not appear available and certainly is not implemented. Consequently, an attempt for the Indian separate school system seems premature at this time. Perhaps the best political action in the near future is to continue to reinforce the growing awareness of the BIA that the bureaucracy owes its legitimacy for existence to the Indians. If the Bureau recognizes a means to garner increased bureaucratic resources by promoting a unified, politically active Indian movement, new avenues to achieve political cohesion may open. Politics has often made strange bedfellows.

Sizemore (see Reference 24) has outlined a five-stage model to create a separatist system by use of the power inclusion approach. Inclusion is defined as full participation in the American social order with complete preservation of distinctive ethnic and cultural differences (see Reference 25).

The first stage involves physical and psychological separation to build a "we" identity. The second stage is nationalist, where the diverse components must give allegiance to a higher order bond. This bond can be based upon a religio-cultural community of beliefs centered upon the group’s history. The third stage focuses upon the development of economic blocs and work niches. The goal is an ethnic base for business and jobs. Given the current economic state of Indians, this stage would probably occur in special circumstances (e.g. discover oil on land). The fourth stage is political development to increase participation abilities through focus and sophistication. The final stage is the ideal equalitarianism in an inclusion society. All separatist groups at this level of participation guarantee each other’s rights to have equal chance of winning. In sum, Sizemore calls upon minorities to adopt a separatist strategy to build, first, personal group identity, then religio-cultural identity, then economic strength and finally political ability. It would seem Indians could find group, religious and cultural identities. Once coordinated, economic and political strength at the federal level seems possible. At that time, there might be a reconsideration of philosophical arguments for separate schools which are more realistically feasible to implement.